There is suspicion that he's a Republican plant, since he is rather poor and didn't campaign but ... even if they paid his filing fee, they didn't run commercials for him. It was Democrats who voted for him.

Then it turns out Obama is right about one thing - questioning the government leads to violence.

As soon as there is a left wing version of Tim McVeigh you can start this thread again. As soon as you can line up the democrats who have assassinated right wingers like we lost two Kennedy's and MLK you can start this thread over again.

I didn't know that Robert Kennedy's assassin was considered right wing, I thought he had issues based on foreign policy. Oswald ... well, few "right wingers" try to defect to the USSR. James Earl Ray recanted his confession and the King family agrees, and what were his political leanings in the first place? I suppose that Reagan lived through his assassination attempt means it doesn't balance JFK. I know Democrats are still pissed at Reagan, but still...

And I'm missing how you come to the conclusion that there is a vast violent left wing movement just ripe to spring into action. Where do they meet to discuss their dastardly deeds pray tell? Whole Foods?

BTW the fact still remains that throughout history prominent progressive activists have a nasty habit of turning up shot. Explain that away however you like, but the right wing leaders just don't seem to have that problem.

Since Alvin Greene is so unknown here, I guess I'll have to elaborate.

The whole of his campaigning appears to be his $10k filing fee. Then he did pretty much nothing for several months, then won the senate primary.

This surprised everyone. He's an unemployed veteran who lives in his father's basement.

Some in the Democratic Party were urging from the start that he step aside.

Now there is a conspiracy theory floating that he's a Republican plant, and some even suggest they paid his filing fee. But that doesn't account for the fact that it was still the Democratic Party Primary that made him the senate candidate. Even if he was a plant, it was Democrats who elected him in a two person primary.

Bombadillo wrote:As soon as there is a left wing version of Tim McVeigh you can start this thread again. As soon as you can line up the democrats who have assassinated right wingers like we lost two Kennedy's and MLK you can start this thread over again.

I can go on, but I think you get my drift.

JFK was assassinated by a pro-Castro leftist who had once defected to the Soviet Union. And RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian who was angry about Kennedy's support for Israel during the Six-Day war.

Typical liberal revisionist history to turn these into right-wing hits.

And since you're going back to the Sixties, Obama's buddy Bill Ayer detonated his share of bombs. But that doesn't count as terrorism in Democrat newspeak.

Now there is a conspiracy theory floating that he's a Republican plant, and some even suggest they paid his filing fee.

Yes, the Republican Three Stage Plan was:

1: Pay Greene's filing fee
2: ????????
3. Profits!

While this would be a brilliant maneuver by the Republicans if they actually did somehow pull it off, Occam's Razor suggests that South Carolina's Democrat voters are simply idiots.

And a year ago, asking a Democratic pol if they supported Obama's agenda most likely would've been answered with a "Hell yes I support the Obamessiah's agenda, peace be upon him." Now it's considered a loaded gotcha question that may end up with the questioner in a headlock.

Oswald pro Castro? That explains all the anti Castro placards he was walking around with and the anti Castro groups he joined.
Oh he was a double agent I hear you say.
Bingo!
But it rather destroys the point you are making.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Oswald pro Castro? That explains all the anti Castro placards he was walking around with and the anti Castro groups he joined.Oh he was a double agent I hear you say.Bingo! But it rather destroys the point you are making.

Are you talking about the "Hands Off Cuba" flyers Oswald was passing out in New Orleans? Those were pro-Castro. The group he belonged to was the Fair Play For Cuba Committee which was communist and most likely received funding from the Soviet Union. Oswald then appeared in a televised debate where he defended Castro. And he also went to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City hoping to defect but the Cubans didn't want him. Then there was the shot he took into the house of right-wing General Walker.

Do try to get your history from somewhere other than Oliver Stone, Tosh.

I have a hard time feeling bad for people who stick cameras in someone else's face to get them to say something disagreeable. Didn't CG whine about the Black Caucus walking through the Tea Party protesters as them trying to incite racial comments to make the Tea Partiers look bad? Isn't that college kid doing exactly the same thing? Seriously, walk up to anyone random on the street, shove a camera in their face, and see what happens.

Neither of those incidents show anything about the democrats as a singular entity, but of specific people committing specific acts, but please, don't let that stop your fallacious logic, CG; do continue.

By the way, Bombadillo, the trend is all the violence that the Democrats have been predicting is finally happening.

And I have a hard time feeling bad for a congressman who can't handle being asked a political question on the street without going berserk. If you're averse to cameras and pointed questions then you best find another line of work.

You're right, Xhen. He never should have gone berserk, and that kid should have not shoved a camera in his face. This incident shows nothing about Democrats and violence. These two individuals were wrong, and that is that. Moving on.

I've never watched any Oliver Stone Xhen so keep your McCarthyite assumptions to yourself.
If it suits your eschatology to believe the assassination of the American president was left wing go ahead but don't expect many believers outside your hermetic little world.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:I've never watched any Oliver Stone Xhen so keep your McCarthyite assumptions to yourself. If it suits your eschatology to believe the assassination of the American president was left wing go ahead but don't expect many believers outside your hermetic little world.

The most raitonal assumption is that the assassinaiton of JFK was by the lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, a former defector to the Soviet Union who had attempted to kill, as Xhen pointed out, a right-wing US general.

Xhen has pointed out Oswald's connecitons. If you have other evidence present it.

Even if inaccurate it is unsurprising that Xhen referred to Stone's entertaining film JFK,it's hardly "McCarthyite"

...and that Alvin Greene thing is really weird.
an unemployed man pays a $10,000 filing fee to enter an election he apparently has no interest in and hasn't got a thing to say about a single issue or any possible motivation?
Then wins with 60% of the vote?! Now apparently has no idea what to do next and who's only talent seems to be the best ever deer trapped by oncoming headlights impression that he does every time he's asked a simple question by the news media?

Just goes to show why you should never accept crazy bets after you've out drinking with your pals all night.

Bombadillo wrote:The guy is obviously a stooge, but who would pay his filing fee and why?

And sorry guys, but Tim McVeigh still has a higher body count than any left winger. You can keep trying to balance the scales but it ain't going to happen.

Let's not forget that the movement that inspired him is alive and thriving in the US, and if anything has been energized by Obama's election.

Let's also not forget Dr. Tiller and others that have been murdered by members of the "pro-life" movement. I'm fairly sure neither Xhen nor CG would call those left-wing incidents.

And I have a hard time feeling bad for a congressman who can't handle being asked a political question on the street without going berserk. If you're averse to cameras and pointed questions then you best find another line of work.

What TED said. That just illustrates a problem with that particular Congressman, and not the party. I haven't seen any major democrats defending the guy.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:And it may not be on-going problem with that congressman, but one reaction to one particular incident. One person reacting to one stimuli at one juncture in time...hardly indicative of anything.

Not sure what the Oliver Stone comment has to do with McCarthyism other than as a catch all insult used in the absense of a logical fact-based response.

If it suits your eschatology to believe the assassination of the American president was left wing go ahead but don't expect many believers outside your hermetic little world.

My hermetic little world also includes virtually all American law enforcement agencies involved in the case and anyone who has studied the facts without an ideological axe to grind.

The case against Oswald has actually grown stronger over the years through the use of modern investigative techniques and technology. Computer models used to determine the path of the so-called magic bullet which wounded both Kennedy and Connelly and the fatal head shot have shown beyond much doubt that the shots came from the sniper's nest window on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository.

The fact that Oswald was a pro-Castro sympathizer has been well-established through documents, photos, and his own words during a televised debate. Claims that he was some kind of right-wing double agent or patsy are the product of convoluted conspiracy theories involving leaps of logic and faith. IMO, these conspiracy theories invented by the left are at least partially motivated by the fact that a liberal icon was murdered by a leftist. It's inconvenient to their world view.

For what it's worth, I don't think Oswald's ideology had anything to do with why he assassinated JFK. He was, first and foremost, a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated opinion of himself. He was bitter that society didn't recognize or reward his intelligence and abilities and decided to make his mark on history by shooting someone important. When his attempt to kill General Walker failed, fate provided him the ultimate target by routing the President's motorcade past the building where he worked. The president's party and politics were largely irrelevant. If Nixon had won the 1960 election and it was his motorcade that was routed past the Texas Schoolbook Depository, Oswald would have undoubtedly been in that same window with his rifle. The assassination was about him, not his target.

There was also the guy who shot the guard at the Holocaust museum last year. I don't remember much about his background or apparent motivations admittedly, although I recall something about him having expressed anti-semitic views in the past.

Ah, such an effort to squelch any discussion of current violence with "oh yeah, well tu quoque, take that." Except that doesn't fly very well.

Waco and Ruby Ridge? Those are great examples? Depends on who you think started the shooting maybe. I'm quite accustomed to defending scoundrels, because it is against scoundrels that the government gets away with abuse, and in those to cases they initiated hostilities against scoundrels. I think when force is initiated by the government, the spectrum of left versus right becomes a lot less relevant.

The holocaust museum shooter? He's not even on the spectrum, and by the way, anti-semitism is not exclusive to right or left. It was the effort to compare that particular person to others (via a gish gallop) that led to the third permanent ban of sf (fourth if you count the ban of a sock of his when he came back under his old name).

So, Bombadillo, tell us more about how progressive Reagan was, since it is the progressive candidates who end up getting shot.

CG, you're just disappointed that there is no real story in this thread (aside from the Oswald stuff--honestly, I don't know or care enough about JFK's assassination to partake in that part of the discussion). Two aggressive incidents where both sides were fully complicit in the action doesn't prove any endemic level of violence that you are trying to demonstrate in your sweeping generalization about Democrats. There is no discussion to squelch because there is nothing to discuss. Get an incident that shows a more collective effort on the Democrats part, and then we'll have something to discuss.

Yep. Bum rush someone with a camera, and see what kind of reaction you get. It's okay to be a douche like that, but at least admit that's what you're doing. And no, I don't think it is okay for senators or protesters to lay their hands on others, but these folks are reacting to stimuli, not acting in a vacuum. You have still failed to demonstrate how two isolated incidents are indicative of any trend in violence of Democrats. I'll wait.